The transfer issue is becoming crazier and crazier.
After the revelation at the end of the last week that SEPTA had not been following the Federal Transportation Administration’s requirement of studying the impact of its fare structure on racial minorities and the poor, I thought we had all the surprises we were going to have and we were just waiting for Judge DiVito to receive final briefs on Thursday and make his decision known by Monday or so.
But the surprises have not stopped.
I don’t have all the details, but from what I have been able to piece together, it looks like SEPTA has asked Judge DiVito (and I think that is the correct spelling of his name), to delay making a decision for another week. Why, I don’t know. But perhaps that request is connected to a second thing I’ve heard: SEPTA General Manager Faye Moore has written to the Federal Transportation Administration, claiming that SEPTA did in fact do the study they were supposed to do.
This is multiply surprising. For, first, John McGee, SEPTA’s chief officer for Revenue, Ridership, Marketing and Sales—and, in my experience, a nice and honest man—testified at the first hearing week that SEPTA had not done the study required by the FTA. In fact, he claimed not to know about the requirement. Now McGee is, as far as I know, the SEPTA official who is in charge of making proposals for fares. He is the one whose office makes projections about ridership given changes in the fare structure. So if the study the FTA required were done, I don’t quite understand how he could not have known about it.
In addition, SEPTA’s attorney spent a good deal of time at the last hearing making the case that the Federal rules had changed and thus SEPTA was not required to do the study. (Actually that wasn’t true. The new rules required a study of the impact on both racial minorities and the poor. The old rules only required a study of the impact on racial minorities. In addition, the new rules went into effect a week before SEPTA initially voted on the fare increase and the new rules were initially proposed months before that.)
Given the claims of SEPTA’s lawyers, and McGee’s testimony, I wonder what Faye Moore is talking about. Did someone else do such a study? Could McGee not been aware of it? If the answers to those questions are yes and no, then it looks like McGee might have perjured himself. If there is really is no such study, the Moore is both making things up and putting one of her loyal staff members in the line of fire of a perjury charge that he will only be able to avoid by saying that she is, shall we say, misspeaking. Either way, it doesn’t really make SEPTA look good.
A second question is: where is this study? It is hard to believe that if SEPTA had such a study, they would not have introduced it in evidence.
A third question: if the Civil Rights division of the FTA has really said that SEPTA has met its requirements—and no study really has been done—who got to the FTA? The Chair of the SEPTA Board, Pat Deon, undoubtedly has friends in Washington. Did someone, maybe our senior Senator, lean on the FTA to support SEPTA?
And, finally, we come back to the question of why SEPTA wants another week’s delay. Will they burn the midnight oil to produce the study they say is already done, and risk further perjury charges (someone should be monitoring 1234 Market at night this week)? Do they want to introduce this new study or have a new hearing to introduce a letter from the FTA saying that they have met the requirements of the agency? Is this focus on the FTA part of SEPTA’s attempt to lay the ground work for an appeal from Common Pleas to Commonwealth Court? (Everyone I know, including my friends at SEPTA, expects the city to win the first round.) Or is SEPTA now just fighting to protect its reputation. A number of people I have talked to at SEPTA tell me that people there are simply furious that the city has raised the issue of racial discrimination. Maybe top officials at SEPTA are so angry that they want to rebut this charge, no matter if it makes their lawyers and Mr. McGee look incompetent at best and dissemblers at worst.
It Is Time to Settle This Thing
All these follies might just be part of a midsummer’s political farce, if the issues raised by the transfer issue—and the legal suit surrounding it—were not so important.
But however much we are enjoying this farce, it really is time for it to end. For no one is going to win if this keeps on much longer.
It is time for the city and SEPTA to settle this dispute. SEPTA should give up its plan to eliminate transfers and the city should reiterate its support for raising the cash and token price a small amount to make up for the $10 million in revenues SEPTA claims it would make by eliminating transfer. (SEPTA would have to show us how it came up with figure, however.)
From SEPTA’s point of view the advantages of a settlement are quite clear,
First, SEPTA is losing the revenues it expected from eliminating transfers. And if the case stays in the courts, it won’t be over for a few months. And, even if SEPTA wins in the courts, we transit activists are going to ask the General Assembly to force the agency to keep transfers. SEPTA might never get its money.
Second, it is quite clear that SEPTA never had a good reason for eliminating transfers. None of their explanations have held any water. We know that you can have electronic fare systems and keep transfers. We know that the administrative problems of dealing with transfers are not overwhelming. And, given that SEPTA has complicated fares on the regional rail, we also know that SEPTA’s claim that they are seeking to simplify the fare structure is bogus.
I’m pretty convinced now that the only reason SEPTA proposed eliminating transfers is that they thought it was politically more saleable than raising the base fare by a dime or fifteen cents. They figured that only a small number of people would be hurt by eliminating transfers.
It is clear now that SEPTA was wrong about the politics. Perhaps the agency didn’t realize that eliminating transfers would put almost a third of the burden of raising the $35 million they needed in fare increase on the 18% of the people who need transfers. (SEPTA may have been misled by its mistaken calculation that showed that only about 6 to 8% used transfers.) I don’t think SEPTA is intentionally biased against blacks, the poor and city residents. But it is certainly capable of not thinking about the impact of its fare structure on those folks. And it is also capable of lacking the foresight to see that blacks and the poor would have advocates willing to fight for them.
So the agency made a political mistake. Instead of compounding that mistake it by fighting to the bitter end, it would be a good idea for SEPTA to admit it made a mistake and fix it now.
And, finally, third, SEPTA is running a big risk. For if they lose this case, and especially if they lose on the grounds that the new fare decision was unreasonable or arbitrary or that it violated the sunshine laws, then the agency might lose more than just $10 million from eliminating the transfers. The whole fare increase might be in jeopardy. SEPTA might have to rebate the fares that have already gone up. And, given SEPTA’s legally mandated rules and procedures it would be a few months before they could raise fares again.
So, why should the city settle the case? Again, for a few reasons.
First, because the city might lose, if not in Common Please than in Commonwealth Court. I do think the city has the better legal case. But I’ve learned not to trust the courts in this state (except for Judge Doris Smith-Ribner.) And I think there is a real possibility that a judge somewhere is going to split the difference and order SEPTA to keep transfers for kids but not for adults. It really is important to keep transfers for everyone. The issue *is* critical for kids. About half the school kids in the city facing a 100 to 200% fare increase because they get free transfers now but will have to pay two fares in the future. But 45,000 adult city residents use transfers, 18% of SEPTA riders. (I explained in my live blog from the last hearing why the city’s figures are much higher than SEPTA’s and why the city is right.) Most of those adults are black and some of them are impoverished or close to it. It is unjust and unfair to do away with transfers and raise the price of transit for those who need it the most are least well served by SEPTA.
Second, I fear that the city might win too much and either all the fare increases would be eliminated or the court will keep transfers but not order a replacement for the revenues lost. No one likes to say that fares have to go up from time to time. But, if we want to have any chance of getting a decent transit system in this region they must go up in part because we won’t get the money we need from Harrisburg without some fare increase and in part because whatever we get from a dedicated source will not be enough to keep improving the system. No transit system in the country runs without riders paying some portion of the operating costs. And we are much better off if fares go up a little bit every year or two, then if major increases happen every seven years. SEPTA should recognize this—and that is another reason why settling this case is in a way that gets city support for an increase in base fare and token is in SEPTA’s interest as well as the city’s.
And, third, the city needs to start working towards a better relationship with SEPTA. In fact, this is a good reason for SEPTA to settle as well. But if SEPTA is not going to take the first step towards creating a better relationship, the city should do so. SEPTA is, as I have written before, incredibly reluctant to be shown bowing to political pressure. That is part of the SEPTA culture that must change. It is far more likely to change if the city—and we transit activists—help the process along by showing the agency that we understand its problems as well as its limitations.
I’ve been talking to folks on both sides about settling the dispute. The reaction I have been getting is predictable and predictably distressing. SEPTA is angry at the city for suing and doesn’t trust the city to accept what the city has already said it would accept instead of eliminating the transfers, a small increase in the base fare and token. The city is angry at SEPTA for not accepting this settlement at its July meeting and doesn’t trust SEPTA not to try to eliminate transfers another time, without a court order.
This is Philadelphia politics at its worst. The solution to this mess is obvious but neither of the parties will accept it.
It is time for the grown-ups to step in and call this farce to a halt. How about it Governor Rendell? Can you please stop this nonsense? Or if you can’t do it alone, how about bringing Bob Brady or our three person Congressional delegation of Brady, Fattah, and Schwartz, in with you?